When this trickled into the “headlines” the other day, I snickered.
Alexandria Ocasio Cortez’ bimbo-level everyday disorientation is the fodder of rightist mockery and there is a tendency to trounce on everything she stupidly utters as an indictment of her diminished intelligence. And her $3 billion analysis of the “lost” tax revenue after New York’s promised Amazon relocation fell through surely qualifies as bimbo-level.
Last Friday, Allahpundit pointed out that there was some sharp criticism of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who suggested that, with the Amazon deal scuttled, NY could now spend the $3 billion the city was prepared to give the company in tax breaks on other priorities. Sunday, Chuck Todd queued up a video clip of AOC saying just that for Mayor Bill de Blasio.
On video, AOC then said, “If we’re willing to give away $3 billion dollars for this deal, we could invest those $3 billion dollars in our district ourselves if we wanted to.” She continued, “We could hire out more teachers. We can fix our subways. We can put a lot of people to work for that money if we wanted to.”
Clearly, she imagines the $3 billion is sitting around somewhere waiting to be spent now that the Amazon deal has been scuttled.
Here’s how Chuck Todd gingerly handled AOC’s confusion: “It seems a lot of people think when you give a tax incentive that, somehow, that’s money you had over here and it was going over there. This is money that didn’t exist, this $3 billion dollars.”
“Correct,” de Blasio replied.
“Do you feel as if this is a problem in trying to explain how this deal worked?” Todd asked.
“This was a deal that was going to bring $27 billion dollars to the state and city for things like public education, mass transit, affordable housing and that $3 billion dollars of go-back in tax incentives was only after we were getting the jobs and getting the revenue,” de Blasio explained.
“There’s not $3 billion dollars in money that exists anywhere, correct?” Todd emphasized.
But beyond AOC’s dense appraisal, this is indicative of a deeper phenomenon I’ve noticed about women in general when it comes to budgeting and money outlays. The solipsism that is the innate ingredient to most female mentalities similarly defines the concept of money. Often, in the world of finance, money is an ethereal principle, a potential, a time-released outlay that is only realized in reverse, in principle, but not quite on paper or in wallet. Monetary smoke and mirrors. But this potential money, or lack of it, becomes a woman’s universe and her reality and her allusions, both in bookkeeping and in financial planning and social harmonizing, integrate this dollar figure into a financial reality and all subsequent narrative and discussion refers to said non-money as real cash that can be spent and wasted in a very liquid manner. Though nothing could be further from the truth for said potential money.
“I saved $5.00” becomes “I made $5.00.”